Mailing-List: contact user-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Multi tenacy with schema per tenant with 'some' tables shared
From: Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPxpy76EX4YeUURCcPmRzcEYnNYotynmfcEvFGgS8xpTH9ViFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:47:46 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EEC9D18C-D5D7-4267-A72C-2E82986BA03D@objectstyle.org>
References: 
 <CAPxpy76EX4YeUURCcPmRzcEYnNYotynmfcEvFGgS8xpTH9ViFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: user@cayenne.apache.org

> Was thinking about to point just the tables that must be separated per
> company, into the company specific schema, leaving those that are =
meant to
> be share into the public schema.

This sounds about right to me.

Andrus


> On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:18 AM, emanuele m <emamaia73@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Actually i have an application
> using cayenne 3.1 stack, with postgress 9.3 as database,
> that implements multiteancy creating
> a separate ServerRuntime per "Company" that relocates
> DbEntities on a specific postgress schema, using an
> XMLDataMapLoader with overrided load method as follow:
>=20
> public DataMap load(Resource configurationResource) {
>        DataMap map =3D super.load(configurationResource);
>        map.setDefaultSchema(tenantSchema);
>        for (DbEntity e : map.getDbEntities()) {
>            e.setSchema(tenantSchema);
>                String sequence =3D
> =
tenantSchema.concat(".").concat(e.getPrimaryKeyGenerator().getGeneratorNam=
e());
>                e.getPrimaryKeyGenerator().setGeneratorName(sequence);
>=20
>        }
>=20
>        return map;
> }
>=20
> As result i have a serverruntime per "Company" from which every user
> obtains his own ObjectContext(s).
>=20
> Now i would need to map some tables into a shared schema.
>=20
> Was thinking about to point just the tables that must be separated per
> company, into the company specific schema, leaving those that are =
meant to
> be share into the public schema.
> Clearly there are no relationships between the "shared" entities and =
the
> "Company" ones.
>=20
> Any advice orsuggestions will be greatly appreciated.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Emanuele